Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On 2013-11-20, Bryan Vyhmeister br...@bsdjournal.net wrote:
You'll have no issues at all. It's a great combination. I tell my
customers and everyone else to just go with an X9SC{L,M} board, an
LGA1155 Pentium, Core i3, or Xeon E3 (if absolutely necessary) and be
done with it. The cheaper Pentium chips and Core i3 support ECC
perfectly and that saves a lot of money that would be wasted on fast
CPUs for minimal workloads.
One thing to note, which may be irrelevant, but may be very important,
is which CPUs support AES-NI - the LGA1155 Pentium/i3 don't.
http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced/?s=tSocketsSupported=LGA1155AESTech=true
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
From: Bryan Vyhmeister [mailto:br...@bsdjournal.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 9:46 PM I have lots of X9SCL-F, X9SCL+-F, X9SCM-F, X9SCI-LN4, X9SCI-LN4F, X9SCM-iiF boards running OpenBSD in production. Both network interfaces work flawlessly. Cool, thanks much for the info. Although I'm not using any of the low power chips since I've found that heat is really not an issue and the non T chips scale down With the 200W power supply in the small form factor chassis, supermicro says the max processor TDP supported by the motherboard is 45w. I guess if you put one in that potentially uses greater power but never push it to do so it would still work, but I assume bad things would happen if it ever accidentally cranked and tried to suck more power than was available 8-/. G860, Core i3 2120, Core i3 3240, Xeon E3 1220, Xeon E3 1260L, and Xeon The specifications for the motherboard on the supermicro site say processors with integrated graphics are not recommended, and since so far I've been unable to push them into clarifying why I was a little leery. The footnote indicates it's coming from Intel regarding the C202 chipset. I've seen a handful of reports of people using processors with integrated graphics with this chipset, and then with your confirmation I feel better about ordering it. Obviously the chipset doesn't support integrated graphics, so the silicon in the CPU is going to waste, but I'm guessing the supermicro documentation team read doesn't support integrated graphics in the chipset documentation and translated that into you shouldn't use one as opposed to if you do use one, you can't use the integrated graphics. If you don't need IPMI, you could save a few dollars and go with the non F versions of the boards. I have found that the IPMI Text Console never works right for anything I've tried including OpenBSD. I've used the serial redirection on illumos and linux boxes without any trouble. I rarely use the video redirection other than for potentially initial bootstrapping and rare diagnostic issues. It's nice not ever having to visit the box in person once it's racked :). Thanks again for the feedback, it was very helpful.
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
From: Stuart Henderson Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:54 AM One thing to note, which may be irrelevant, but may be very important, is which CPUs support AES-NI - the LGA1155 Pentium/i3 don't. Yeah, you've got to bump up to a much more expensive Xeon to get that :(. Thanks for the heads up, but for this box the extra cost isn't worth it.
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote: With the 200W power supply in the small form factor chassis, supermicro says the max processor TDP supported by the motherboard is 45w. I guess if you put one in that potentially uses greater power but never push it to do so it would still work, but I assume bad things would happen if it ever accidentally cranked and tried to suck more power than was available 8-/. From looking at Supermicro's CSE-510-203B page, it says 65W TDP and every CPU I've mentioned below except for the Xeon E3 1220 (80W) and Xeon E3 1230v2 (69W) fall below this. G860, Core i3 2120, Core i3 3240, Xeon E3 1220, Xeon E3 1260L, and Xeon E3 1230v2 The specifications for the motherboard on the supermicro site say processors with integrated graphics are not recommended, and since so far I've been unable to push them into clarifying why I was a little leery. The footnote indicates it's coming from Intel regarding the C202 chipset. I've seen a handful of reports of people using processors with integrated graphics with this chipset, and then with your confirmation I feel better about ordering it. Obviously the chipset doesn't support integrated graphics, so the silicon in the CPU is going to waste, but I'm guessing the supermicro documentation team read doesn't support integrated graphics in the chipset documentation and translated that into you shouldn't use one as opposed to if you do use one, you can't use the integrated graphics. I don't think it matters for lower power chips at all and I've been using chips with integrated graphics for a long time with no issues. There's only an option on the Xeon E3 chips for no integrated graphics anyway. That being said, the Xeon E3 1260L and 1265Lv2 chips are ones that Supermicro reps have recommended to me and both have integrated graphics although they are low power chips. It's just a waste to use a Xeon E3 1245v2, for example, which adds heat that shouldn't be there. If you don't need IPMI, you could save a few dollars and go with the non F versions of the boards. I have found that the IPMI Text Console never works right for anything I've tried including OpenBSD. I've used the serial redirection on illumos and linux boxes without any trouble. I rarely use the video redirection other than for potentially initial bootstrapping and rare diagnostic issues. It's nice not ever having to visit the box in person once it's racked :). It certaily is convenient to avoid connecting a monitor to the system and to be able to deal with things remotely. I do it all the time. Bryan
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:35:35PM -0800, 'Bryan Vyhmeister' wrote: From looking at Supermicro's CSE-510-203B page, it says 65W TDP and every CPU I've mentioned below except for the Xeon E3 1220 (80W) and Xeon E3 1230v2 (69W) fall below this. Hmm, I guess I was actually looking at the SuperServer 5017C-LF page: http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/5017/SYS-5017C-LF.cfm It has the X9SCL-F motherboard, a similar chassis with a 200w power supply, and indicates max tdp = 45w. I asked supermicro support about the 510T-203B chassis with the same motherboard, and they told me it only supported up to 45w as well. Dunno, better safe than sorry, the T version is about the same price as the regular.
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:31:23PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote: Hmm, I guess I was actually looking at the SuperServer 5017C-LF page: http://www.supermicro.com/products/system/1U/5017/SYS-5017C-LF.cfm It has the X9SCL-F motherboard, a similar chassis with a 200w power supply, and indicates max tdp = 45w. I asked supermicro support about the 510T-203B chassis with the same motherboard, and they told me it only supported up to 45w as well. Dunno, better safe than sorry, the T version is about the same price as the regular. Very interesting. There is some ambiguity in the specs. Looking at the SC510L-200B chassis which is what's included with the SYS-5017C-LF system you linked to, it also says 65W TDP. http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/1U/510/SC510L-200.cfm From one of my systems with a Pentium G640 in the SC510T-200B case along with two Western Digital Scorpio Black 320GB 2.5-inch drives, these are the hw.sensors values: hw.sensors.cpu0.temp0=34.00 degC hw.sensors.cpu1.temp0=34.00 degC hw.sensors.acpitz0.temp0=27.80 degC (zone temperature) hw.sensors.acpitz1.temp0=29.80 degC (zone temperature) hw.sensors.sdtemp0.temp0=29.69 degC hw.sensors.sdtemp1.temp0=29.62 degC hw.sensors.lm1.temp0=35.00 degC hw.sensors.lm1.temp1=33.50 degC hw.sensors.lm1.temp2=28.00 degC hw.sensors.lm1.fan0=3013 RPM hw.sensors.lm1.fan1=164 RPM hw.sensors.lm1.fan2=3006 RPM hw.sensors.lm1.fan3=164 RPM hw.sensors.lm1.fan4=2973 RPM Also, the SC510T-200B page lists 65W TDP while the SC510T-203B (only difference is gold rated power supply) doesn't list a TDP value. Also, be aware that the SC510L-200B case (included with SYS-5017C-LF) is listed as only having a single fan. I don't have one to verify but I can verify that the SC510-200B has two fans next to each other as pictured and the SC510T-200B has three fans, two in the same location as the others and a third blowing on the two hot swap 2.5-inch hard drive bays. I think the SC510T-200B/203B is the better choice for hard drives. I use mostly SSDs in the SC510-200B systems I have. Bryan
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
From: 'Bryan Vyhmeister' [mailto:br...@bsdjournal.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:51 PM Very interesting. There is some ambiguity in the specs. Looking at the SC510L-200B chassis which is what's included with the SYS-5017C-LF system you linked to, it also says 65W TDP. Well, it can't hurt to use less power :). I ended up ordering all the parts, hopefully they'll show up by mid next week so I can assemble them over the long weekend. I managed to escalate the integrated graphics question high enough to find somebody who knew what they were talking about, he said, as you confirmed, that they work fine with this motherboard other than that you cannot use the integrated graphics, it is disabled. Pretty much what I thought, they should clarify their footnote on the specification page. the hw.sensors values: Out of curiosity, have you tried enabling the ipmi driver? I have an older atom server with an X7SPA-HF motherboard (which is actually being replaced by this one), and I found that the ipmi sensor provided more values than the lm one. The box came as passively cooled, I ended up sticking in three fans anyway. It still runs a bit hot, but within the acceptable range for that processor: hw.sensors.ipmi0.temp0=54.00 degC (System Temp), CRITICAL hw.sensors.ipmi0.temp1=64.00 degC (CPU Temp), CRITICAL hw.sensors.ipmi0.fan0=4840 RPM (CPU FAN), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.fan1=6135 RPM (SYS FAN), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.volt0=1.11 VDC (CPU Vcore), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.volt1=1.04 VDC (Vichcore), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.volt2=3.30 VDC (+3.3VCC), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.volt3=1.53 VDC (VDIMM), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.volt4=5.09 VDC (+5 V), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.volt5=12.30 VDC (+12 V), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.volt6=3.30 VDC (+3.3VSB), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.volt7=3.22 VDC (VBAT), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.indicator0=Off (Chassis Intru), OK hw.sensors.ipmi0.indicator1=On (PS Status), OK I think the SC510T-200B/203B is the better choice for hard drives. I use Yep. I like hot-swap, it would be a pain to have to disconnect and unrack the unit to swap out a fixed internal drive.
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 05:38:33PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote: I managed to escalate the integrated graphics question high enough to find somebody who knew what they were talking about, he said, as you confirmed, that they work fine with this motherboard other than that you cannot use the integrated graphics, it is disabled. Pretty much what I thought, they should clarify their footnote on the specification page. Looking at one of the pages, it only says the Xeon E3 12x5 [v2] chips are not recommended. They really should specify more clearly. Out of curiosity, have you tried enabling the ipmi driver? I have an older atom server with an X7SPA-HF motherboard (which is actually being replaced by this one), and I found that the ipmi sensor provided more values than the lm one. The box came as passively cooled, I ended up sticking in three fans anyway. It still runs a bit hot, but within the acceptable range for that processor: The ipmi(4) driver only supports IPMI 1.5 although the X7SPA-HF specifies that it supports IPMI 2.0 just like the X9SCL-F and similar boards. For whatever reason it doesn't provide any values or load at all. The kern.watchdog.period option also doesn't appear on this system (running 5.4, by the way). The ipmi(4) driver shows up in my dmesg but as: ipmi at mainbus0 not configured A few years back I had an X7SPA-HF or similar board in the barebones system you can buy but I don't have a dmesg from it readily accessible. In any case, ipmi(4) is not working on my systems. Bryan
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 18:59, 'Bryan Vyhmeister' wrote: (running 5.4, by the way). The ipmi(4) driver shows up in my dmesg but as: ipmi at mainbus0 not configured A few years back I had an X7SPA-HF or similar board in the barebones system you can buy but I don't have a dmesg from it readily accessible. In any case, ipmi(4) is not working on my systems. The ipmi driver is disabled by default because it does bad things on some systems. If you don't go out of your way to enable it, the not configured line is all you'll see.
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:16:05PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: The ipmi driver is disabled by default because it does bad things on some systems. If you don't go out of your way to enable it, the not configured line is all you'll see. That's what I was going to say, but you beat me to it ;). For mailing list archive purposes, you need to run 'config -e' on your kernel binary and 'enable ipmi', then reboot. So far I haven't found anything bad it does on my system. When it's enabled, there is a watchdog setting in sysctl on my box, but the last time I tried to use it it always rebooted after the interval, it didn't seem to be reseting the timeout correctly. My box hasn't ever frozen since it's been deployed, so that lack hasn't been a problem. The only difference I've noticed between ipmi/no ipmi is a few more sensors displayed.
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:16:05PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: The ipmi driver is disabled by default because it does bad things on some systems. If you don't go out of your way to enable it, the not configured line is all you'll see. Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that. What sort of bad things happen? I wonder how difficult adding IPMI 2.0 support would be or if it would matter at all. Bryan
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 21:33, 'Bryan Vyhmeister' wrote: On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:16:05PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: The ipmi driver is disabled by default because it does bad things on some systems. If you don't go out of your way to enable it, the not configured line is all you'll see. Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that. What sort of bad things happen? I wonder how difficult adding IPMI 2.0 support would be or if it would matter at all. machine hangs and such. you will figure out if you're affected or not pretty quickly. :) cause unknown.
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:57:06AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: machine hangs and such. you will figure out if you're affected or not pretty quickly. :) cause unknown. Good to know. I'll try it out and see what happens. Thanks. Bryan
low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
I was recently looking for a low-power small form factor box and was initially thinking of the supermicro SuperServer 5017A-EF, which seemed a good fit. Unfortunately, the fairly new atom SoC in that box isn't currently supported, nor is the crappy not-quite-AHCI Marvell sata controller. So, I'm thinking of putting something together from parts instead. I'm looking at the supermicro X9SCL-F motherboard which has an Intel C202 PCH chipset and 2 gigabit interfaces (Intel 82579LM and 82574L), combined with a Core i3-3220T, stuffed in a 510T-203B chassis. I see from the em man page and the list archives that those two Intel ethernet chipsets seem reasonably well supported. I couldn't find any specific mention of the C202 chipset, but I believe the Intel AHCI SATA interface is actually AHCI compliant, so trust it would work fine with the standard ahci driver. The i3 processor has a 35w TDP versus the atom's 8.5w, but actually working with openbsd is a bit more important than saving a few watts :). According to the Intel ARK this i3 processor should support ECC memory when installed on a board with a server class chipset. I really appreciated the heads up I got last week about the unsupported atom, that definitely saved me from ordering a box I couldn't use 8-/, so if anybody sees any potential issues with this combination for an openBSD server I'd appreciate hearing about it :). Thanks much.
Re: low-power/small form factor server (supermicro X9SCL-F w Core i3-3220T)
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 07:45:46PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote:
I'm looking at the supermicro X9SCL-F motherboard which has an Intel
C202 PCH chipset and 2 gigabit interfaces (Intel 82579LM and 82574L),
combined with a Core i3-3220T, stuffed in a 510T-203B chassis.
I have lots of X9SCL-F, X9SCL+-F, X9SCM-F, X9SCI-LN4, X9SCI-LN4F,
X9SCM-iiF boards running OpenBSD in production. Both network interfaces
work flawlessly. I mostly use the CSE-510-200B, CSE-510T-200B, and
CSE-512L-200B chassis options from Supermicro. I use the Kingston
KVR13E9 Unbuffered ECC memory chips in all the various sizes (2GB, 4GB,
and 8GB). Although I'm not using any of the low power chips since I've
found that heat is really not an issue and the non T chips scale down
just the same, I have used lots of chips including the Pentium G620,
G860, Core i3 2120, Core i3 3240, Xeon E3 1220, Xeon E3 1260L, and Xeon
E3 1230v2. You will also want the Supermicro SNK-P0046P heatsink for any
of those 1U cases and an LGA1155 CPU.
If you want to use the IPMI feature, it works fine with the Java
IPMIview software on OS X (presumably Windows and Linux too) with the
KVM Console option with the addition of a couple of
Supermicro-provided Java libraries (do a search to find blog posts about
this on OS X).
If you don't need IPMI, you could save a few dollars and go with the non
F versions of the boards. I have found that the IPMI Text Console
never works right for anything I've tried including OpenBSD.
I see from the em man page and the list archives that those two Intel
ethernet chipsets seem reasonably well supported. I couldn't find any
specific mention of the C202 chipset, but I believe the Intel AHCI SATA
interface is actually AHCI compliant, so trust it would work fine with the
standard ahci driver. The i3 processor has a 35w TDP versus the atom's 8.5w,
but actually working with openbsd is a bit more important than saving a few
watts :).
The C202, C204, C206, C212, C214, and C216 controllers all work
perfectly with hard drives or SSDs.
According to the Intel ARK this i3 processor should support ECC memory when
installed on a board with a server class chipset. I really appreciated the
heads up I got last week about the unsupported atom, that definitely saved
me from ordering a box I couldn't use 8-/, so if anybody sees any potential
issues with this combination for an openBSD server I'd appreciate hearing
about it :).
You'll have no issues at all. It's a great combination. I tell my
customers and everyone else to just go with an X9SC{L,M} board, an
LGA1155 Pentium, Core i3, or Xeon E3 (if absolutely necessary) and be
done with it. The cheaper Pentium chips and Core i3 support ECC
perfectly and that saves a lot of money that would be wasted on fast
CPUs for minimal workloads.
Bryan
